• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Oregon Wildlife Refuge Occupiers Left Behind A $4M Mess

I still want to know where their constitutional argument was wrong. In my opinion the federal government should only own enough land to govern.
 
Henrin said:
I still want to know where their constitutional argument was wrong. In my opinion the federal government should only own enough land to govern.
Click to expand...

In that these states voluntarily ceded control to the federal government in their enabling acts.

So that the Feds could hand them to immigrants and railroading interests at bargain basement prices, and then ended up stuck with them after that fell through, but nonetheless, it's legal
 
EMNofSeattle said:
In that these states voluntarily ceded control to the federal government in their enabling acts.

So that the Feds could hand them to immigrants and railroading interests at bargain basement prices, and then ended up stuck with them after that fell through, but nonetheless, it's legal
Click to expand...

It's actually not legal because it's not part of the enumerated powers. The Constitution is very specific. The federal government can only do the very specifically assigned jobs to them. Now, knowing how people are, and how power is, power will always flow uphill and consolidate over a period of time until it reaches the point where it is no longer tolerable and it then resets.
 
Henrin said:
I still want to know where their constitutional argument was wrong. In my opinion the federal government should only own enough land to govern.
Click to expand...

question: who originally paid for the "federal land"?
(hint: States didn't)
 
Fishking said:
It's actually not legal because it's not part of the enumerated powers. The Constitution is very specific. The federal government can only do the very specifically assigned jobs to them. Now, knowing how people are, and how power is, power will always flow uphill and consolidate over a period of time until it reaches the point where it is no longer tolerable and it then resets.
Click to expand...

So then you support the sheriff posse movement?
 
Fishking said:
I know, right? I mean, how much does fencing go for installing these days? It's like $100K a foot or something, right?
Click to expand...

The refuge is nearly 300 square miles, you can do a lot of damage to that amount of land when your goal seems to be just to tear **** up.
 
Has there ever been an estimate of damage anywhere that isn't blown out of proportion?
 
mike2810 said:
question: who originally paid for the "federal land"?
(hint: States didn't)
Click to expand...

The question is over if they have just claim of ownership, not if they bought it or not.
 
Remember when the Thug supporters were claiming it was OK, because it was deserted, closed, no employees, etc.etc.

In all, the standoff will cost Fish and Wildlife about $6 million, with about $2 million spent during the takeover, including the costs of moving the refuge's 17 employees out of town for safety to live at government expense in hotels for weeks, Ashe said.
Click to expand...
 
I would bid 3K to clean that mess up. I see far worse in Section 8 rentals.

I do this for a living...along with repairs.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The refuge is nearly 300 square miles, you can do a lot of damage to that amount of land when your goal seems to be just to tear **** up.
Click to expand...

Then why are we just seeing evidence of junk left behind in a building and a hole dug in teh ground?

Where's the other evidence of 4million in damage - because that's like tornadoes destroyed multiple homes scale of destruction in my state.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Then the government can put a lien on their ranches, and if not paid, sell the ranches. That from a Fiscal Conservative.
Click to expand...

Indeed (hopefully).

Civil disobedience means accepting the consequences.

Armed insurrection means you thank your stars if you get out alive.



reinoe said:
There were also a bunch of cameras destroyed, which is likely where a large portion of the charges are coming from. But these occupiers aren't gonna pay it. Remember most of them were welfare queens and had no jobs.
Click to expand...

Which only goes to show the perversity of their stance and of their supporters....but yes.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
This is the building...

View attachment 67199256

These idiots are scum but this story is sensationalist garbage.
Click to expand...


Yeah. The valuation sounds a bit questionable.

I'm guessing land values aren't that high out in rural areas like that. But this was also federal property. I have to wonder if they're using that to inflate the damage cost (that is...there is no comparable real estate values for buildings on federal lands for the simple reason that such buildings aren't privately bought and sold).

That would easily go for 4 mil. in Cambridge, MA. But out there? Probably a few hundred grand to rebuild it from scratch, max.
 
Henrin said:
I still want to know where their constitutional argument was wrong. In my opinion the federal government should only own enough land to govern.
Click to expand...

Why is it wrong? Because we don't want slack-jawed cretins digging trenches in sacred burial ground so they can take a dump on historical artifacts and remains.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Read more here: The Oregon Wildlife Refuge Occupiers Left Behind A $4M Mess (PHOTOS)

Look at the pictures, they just trashed your public property.

By the way, Oregon's outdoor industry brings in 12 billion a year into the state while cattle ranching is less than 1 billion (you can hear about that here: BBC World Service - The Documentary, America?s Angry Cowboys )[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Look at the pictures of Waco, TX with dead American women and children burned and shot to death. So the polluters are Americans fighting against the military police force?? The real polluters are the corporate filth.
 
Mr Person said:
Yeah. The valuation sounds a bit questionable.

I'm guessing land values aren't that high out in rural areas like that. But this was also federal property. I have to wonder if they're using that to inflate the damage cost (that is...there is no comparable real estate values for buildings on federal lands for the simple reason that such buildings aren't privately bought and sold).

That would easily go for 4 mil. in Cambridge, MA. But out there? Probably a few hundred grand to rebuild it from scratch, max.
Click to expand...

I said that at first, but someone else brought up that maybe that 4 mil includes LE wages and various other costs related to the occupation and not merely the damage to the building itself.

if they had like 40 FBI agents drawing OT and expenses for a couple of months then i can see millions racking up quick.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Read more here: The Oregon Wildlife Refuge Occupiers Left Behind A $4M Mess (PHOTOS)

Look at the pictures, they just trashed your public property.

By the way, Oregon's outdoor industry brings in 12 billion a year into the state while cattle ranching is less than 1 billion (you can hear about that here: BBC World Service - The Documentary, America?s Angry Cowboys )[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the damage done all across the country by the OWS crowd. I don't remember reading many complaints from the liberal/progressive crowd on that fact.

What is interesting is how people are calling for the seizure of land owned by these protestors to pay for the questionable cost of repairs. Of further interest is how the citizens in the State of Oregon were pushed aside in this Federal Government land grab, and now people are calling for more land grabbing. Best hope the government doesn't continue down this slippery slope by taking land from citizens to pay for violations the government arbitrarily decides one is guilty of.
 
ocean515 said:
Reminds me of the damage done all across the country by the OWS crowd. I don't remember reading many complaints from the liberal/progressive crowd on that fact.

What is interesting is how people are calling for the seizure of land owned by these protestors to pay for the questionable cost of repairs. Of further interest is how the citizens in the State of Oregon were pushed aside in this Federal Government land grab, and now people are calling for more land grabbing. Best hope the government doesn't continue down this slippery slope by taking land from citizens to pay for violations the government arbitrarily decides one is guilty of.
Click to expand...

The Federal Government cannot just arbitrarlily declare someone guilty.

Liens have to be approved by a court. if you illegally damage something you're liable for making the aggreived party whole again, if you have insurance, that's one avenue, or you can pay cash, or the aggrieved party can have a court places liens on substantial property you own that prevent you from selling it or using it for profit without sharing the gain with a lien holder. This is routine in civil actions.

many of these protesters broke criminal law as well. Because I sort of sympathize with the cause, although not their actions and not to the degree of transferring public land over to private interests, I would be happy to see if any protesters with substantial assets got their pants sued off civilally and had to reimburse taxpayers like ME for the money that is needed to fix MY land.

Most of the OWS crowd are the very definition of "judgement proof" but if any actual ranchers were involved in this occupation they have some assets.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The Federal Government cannot just arbitrarlily declare someone guilty.

Liens have to be approved by a court. if you illegally damage something you're liable for making the aggreived party whole again, if you have insurance, that's one avenue, or you can pay cash, or the aggrieved party can have a court places liens on substantial property you own that prevent you from selling it or using it for profit without sharing the gain with a lien holder. This is routine in civil actions.

many of these protesters broke criminal law as well. Because I sort of sympathize with the cause, although not their actions and not to the degree of transferring public land over to private interests, I would be happy to see if any protesters with substantial assets got their pants sued off civilally and had to reimburse taxpayers like ME for the money that is needed to fix MY land.

Most of the OWS crowd are the very definition of "judgement proof" but if any actual ranchers were involved in this occupation they have some assets.
Click to expand...

Of course the Federal Government can arbitrarily find people guilty. They do that all the time by establishing new regulations the citizens have no control over. The history and actions of the Federal Government in the West is a study in outrageous over zealous action that places people in confrontation with new laws and regulations they, and the rest of their citizens have no control over. Exactly how much of the Western United States does the Federal Government need to take from the citizens who live there?

That being said, I can't support damaging public property. However, why should these protestors be treated any differently than the OWS fools were treated? The Feds have names of OWS protestors, and should apply identical methods to recover the massive damage they caused, and the money they forced citizens to fork over to repair all of it.
 
ocean515 said:
Of course the Federal Government can arbitrarily find people guilty. They do that all the time by establishing new regulations the citizens have no control over. The history and actions of the Federal Government in the West is a study in outrageous over zealous action that places people in confrontation with new laws and regulations they, and the rest of their citizens have no control over. Exactly how much of the Western United States does the Federal Government need to take from the citizens who live there?
Click to expand...

The land never belonged to those citizens to start with. most of the federal land was "taken" before these states were even states, and was used to subsidize railroad construction. good example, the public forests in Western Oregon from the coast to the spine of the cascades were sold to railroad companies at dirt cheap prices to provide corridors for the Oregon and California railroad. when the railroads were done the rest of the land defaulted back to the Feds, actually much of that land was revested to the feds due to massive fraud by railroading and logging interests. read up on that! The states when formed ceded this land in their enabling acts, and in reality, never wanted the land to start with, as they hadn't the resources to manage it. And they still do not.

I understand you have a problem with regulations, and I do have some issues with how they've handled certain issues, places like Shasta County California, and Pacific County WA, Clatsop County Ore etc were devastated by loss of timber royalties, arbitrary cattle regulations hurt many farmers in eastern Oregon, etc. but that doesn't change the fact that these lands do not rightfully belong to the states, and were never "taken" from them. the states never had dominion to start with.

That being said, I can't support damaging public property. However, why should these protestors be treated any differently than the OWS fools were treated? The Feds have names of OWS protestors, and should apply identical methods to recover the massive damage they caused, and the money they forced citizens to fork over to repair all of it.
Click to expand...

The Feds have nothing to do with OWS, that's damage done to land under control of states and municipalities. Who may sue if they so desire. Bring it up at your next city council meeting.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The land never belonged to those citizens to start with. most of the federal land was "taken" before these states were even states, and was used to subsidize railroad construction. good example, the public forests in Western Oregon from the coast to the spine of the cascades were sold to railroad companies at dirt cheap prices to provide corridors for the Oregon and California railroad. when the railroads were done the rest of the land defaulted back to the Feds, actually much of that land was revested to the feds due to massive fraud by railroading and logging interests. read up on that! The states when formed ceded this land in their enabling acts, and in reality, never wanted the land to start with, as they hadn't the resources to manage it. And they still do not.

I understand you have a problem with regulations, and I do have some issues with how they've handled certain issues, places like Shasta County California, and Pacific County WA, Clatsop County Ore etc were devastated by loss of timber royalties, arbitrary cattle regulations hurt many farmers in eastern Oregon, etc. but that doesn't change the fact that these lands do not rightfully belong to the states, and were never "taken" from them. the states never had dominion to start with.



The Feds have nothing to do with OWS, that's damage done to land under control of states and municipalities. Who may sue if they so desire. Bring it up at your next city council meeting.
Click to expand...

The land never belonged to the citizens? I'm sorry, but that is a statement I can't get past. Where does "We the people.." fit in to this interpretation?

I'm familiar, in a general way, with the actions the Feds took during the building of railroads, it's a case of the end justifying the means. However, a view of the amount of land owned by the Federal Government in the West is a stunning example of government overreach. If the argument is states not having the means to administer, why is there a virtual line drawn from North to South starting at the Rockies? Are states to the east somehow better equipped?

As to OWS, the militant radicals damaged not only public land, but Federal land as well. Unfortunately, the support of these militants by members of the Federal Government insured the citizens would never be compensated for the money they were forced to shell out to clean up their mess. I guess the moral of the story is, militants who damage and occupy need to be sure their cause is in step with the political forces in place in the White House and Congress so the damage they cause will be approved.
 
Skeptics should take into account not only the physical damage, but also the loss in productivity and wasted wages. People were speculating the severity of the resultant economic damage during the stunt, and considering how long they occupied the building, $4M is no stretch.
 
But man, if only those patriots had darker complexion...
 
ocean515 said:
The land never belonged to the citizens? I'm sorry, but that is a statement I can't get past. Where does "We the people.." fit in to this interpretation?

I'm familiar, in a general way, with the actions the Feds took during the building of railroads, it's a case of the end justifying the means. However, a view of the amount of land owned by the Federal Government in the West is a stunning example of government overreach. If the argument is states not having the means to administer, why is there a virtual line drawn from North to South starting at the Rockies? Are states to the east somehow better equipped?

.
Click to expand...

Most of that land is privately adminsitered and those states have far higher population density. I'm aware of very few places out east, in fact, nowhere out east, that's as lightly populated at Wyoming or Montana. or even California. outside of the Bay and the 6 or 7 southern counties of California that place is empty.

much of the Midwest was doled out for homesteading and became private farmland, out west, like I cited with the O&C railroad, it was given out for railroading interest and mining/prospecting claims. in many ways the lands were marginal and in many cases parties recieving it defrauded the government in various ways. until the Bureau of Reclamation came along much of this land was completely useless.

We the people own it through federal management. In some ways the feds manage it wrong but that's partly because in a society where few people actually participate in politics granola crunchers get a disproportionate voice in the decision making.

But what's your solution? sell it all out to private interests? I cannot agree with that. that "solution" will be worse then the "problem"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom